Jet streams are dipping further south to cause extended cool temperatures

This year’s uncommonly cold winter has put to bed the notion global warming is anything but a myth, right?

Wrong, says a group of researchers out of New Jersey’s Rutgers University, who have put out a new study that suggests the prolonged cold snaps we’ve experienced could be a direct result of climate change.

The 2012 paper says melting Arctic ice is weakening the jet stream. This weakening causes the jet stream to dip further south, which in Canada brings severe cold temperatures for prolonged periods of time.

Except, there was biggrowth in the Arctic in 2013, meaning there was much more ice during the winter. Judith Curry already beat this assumption up regarding the polar vortexes that keep rolling down.

And Anthony Watts (hat tip for the story) notes that for the 1976-1977 bitterly cold and snowy winter, they blamed global cooling.

Unfortunately, there are people stupid enough to buy that warming causes cold and snow.

Arain said the bottom line is that one cannot draw conclusions about climate change based on temperatures on a particular day.

How about during entire seasons? How about when much of the northern hemisphere has seen cold and snowy winters 5 out of the last 6 winters? How about when much of the Northern hemisphere saw no spring in 2013? How about when there has been no statistically significant warming in approaching 18 years? How about when all the Warmist predictions fail to meet real world data?

This doesn’t prove that the world hasn’t warmed: it has. It doesn’t prove that there wasn’t a spike during the 1980’s (and a few other times during the Modern Warm Period): it did. What it’s knocking out is the notion of anthropogenic global warming, or, as it’s been rebranded in order to cover every weather event (along with earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, a bad night’s sleep, skidmarks, etc), climate change.

It still gets cold in the winter. Because of apparent changes in jet stream patterns parts of the Earth have had really cold winters!

“How about when there has been no statistically significant warming in approaching 18 years?”

But the data are clear. The Earth’s surface and oceans are still warming. Still relying on the 1998 El Nino year, I see. Poor form for a scientist, but not for a pundit.

Also, you have no idea what “statistically significant warming” even means.

“What it’s knocking out is the notion of anthropogenic global warming, or, as it’s been rebranded in order to cover every weather event… climate change.”

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE) was formed in 1988. So the primary international body on global warming has called itself the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE for 26 years. When did it “rebrand” itself?

And how does a cold winter (or even 5 or 6) over less than 1% of the Earth’s surface “knock out the notion of AGW”? There is more to the world than just the US. (And please don’t claim the Anthony Watts “data” refutes anything).

And Jeffery goes on to make a post that proves that the lies are all his.

Ice always increases in the Arctic winter. I mean, it’s the winter, fergawdsakes.

Yet that is not what was being addressed. In order to try and make a point, Jeffery deliberately takes something out of context and then says “see?”

On the Jeffery Lie-O-Meter, he is one up on Teach.

“How about when there has been no statistically significant warming in approaching 18 years?”

Ya gotta love how Jeffery labels this as a lie and then says the earth is still warming. Only in the world of a delusional mind can one person say something is warming and then get called a liar for saying that something is warming.

Lie-O-Meter starting to rev up now…… 2 lies for Jeffery, none for Teach.

Also, you have no idea what “statistically significant warming” even means.

This statement is made without proof. This gets back to the idea that pseudo intellectuals like Jeffery think on they know what terms mean. In the past on this blog we have seen him try to redefine terms from their accepted and acknowledged mean when he has gotten caught fudging statements. Based on past history, his statement on not knowing what a term means adds to the lie count. He now leads 3 – 0.

When did it “rebrand” itself?

In its own papers, the IPCC first referred to this discussion (for lack of a better term” as “AGW.” Now AGW is seldom used, even within the IPCC reports and the all inclusive “climate change” is used. This allows for every change in weather and climate to be the cause of “climate change” and the so called associated “reasons” for that change.

In other words, the IPCC helped the rebranding, Jeffery. The IPCC, in addition to having many scientific problems, knew the term “AGW” was not going to sit well with people, so they started changing the name. I seem to remember that there are memos from people of your ilk on this point.

And how does a cold winter (or even 5 or 6) over less than 1% of the Earth’s surface “knock out the notion of AGW”?

Weather patterns do not start or stop at the borders of the United States. Such a claim shows how ridiculously stupid and willing to lie you really are.

Oh, and by the way Jeffery, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.

Are you trying to say that the cold spilling out of the Arctic into the US and N Europe is evidence that the Earth is not warming?

If only I had added something at the end of the post like

This doesn’t prove that the world hasn’t warmed: it has. It doesn’t prove that there wasn’t a spike during the 1980′s (and a few other times during the Modern Warm Period): it did. What it’s knocking out is the notion of anthropogenic global warming, or, as it’s been rebranded in order to cover every weather event (along with earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, a bad night’s sleep, skidmarks, etc), climate change.

The theory of AGW does not depend on whether the warm Arctic region triggers atypical weather patterns in the US.

The theory is easily falsified with evidence showing that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, i.e., prove that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, or that the heat content of the Earth is not increasing as atmospheric CO2 increases. Better yet, if the Earth cools (surface and oceans) while atmospheric CO2 increases, the theory of AGW would be falsified, and we’d all be better off.

The theory is easily falsified with evidence showing that CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, i.e., prove that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, or that the heat content of the Earth is not increasing as atmospheric CO2 increases.

Multiple articles and published papers show that an increase in temperature precedes an increase in CO2. It is therefore difficult to say that the CO2 is causing the increase in temperatures.

Therefore your own theory of why temperatures are increasing is deeply flawed.

Instead of acting for someone to “disprove” the theory of AGW, the fact of the matter is that the theory itself has not been proven. Now we all know that your next statement is that no theory in “science” is ever proven, and while that has an element of truth you assertion to that fact is troubling on its on.

The reason? It is logically impossible to “prove” a negative without the positive first being proven.

Your own theory and words condemn you.

You have claimed that it is impossible to “prove” any scientific theory and yet demand that others “prove” the theory wrong.

Your next step will be to claim that there is a scientific “consensus” but that would assume that a “consensus” is the same as “proof.” After all, there was a consensus that the earth rested in heavens on the back of Atlas. (Or if you like, the consensus formed by Democrats who believe that the sun revolves around the earth.)

What you have demonstrated is that you really don’t understand what you are saying. Not only that, as Teach, jl, Gumballs, and others have shown, you don’t read or understand anything that is contrary to your cult-like beliefs. Nothing anyone can say, show or demonstrate to you will ever convince you that you are wrong (or at least not right.)

Oh, and by the way, Al Gore and you are still hypocrites in the AGW debate and your unwillingness of you, Gore and people of your ilk to change your lifestyle shows that your talk about AGW is bluster and that you don’t actually believe what you type.

LIVE TRAFFIC

YE OLDE ADVERTS

Categories

Calendar

Meta

Blog Stats

5,286,000 hits

THE CODE

All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.

NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.